Thread 17891581

Why are they so obessed with stealing british culture?
What's their end goal?

>>17891581 (OP)
There is no end goal. They’re just funny British (English 2.0) people now. Just like Scotland and Wales.

>>17891814
>Wales
When they're not making gurgling noices they are completely indistinguishable from Englishmen.

>>17891581 (OP)
>nationalist revolution
>let their language go extinct
>start importing infinity indians and africans
really makes you think

26+6=1

They're not trying to steal anything. They just happen to enjoy a lot of things British people enjoy, like doing funny dances at the discotheque, or playing football.

>>17891581 (OP)
they are culture-less simpletons. The real issue is the plastic paddy mind virus. It has led to the extinction of culture in the west, real culture is substituted by imaginary commercial culture-less paddy slop like green hats and alcoholism.

Israel had a more successful war of independence than Ireland did kek

>>17891983
>>17891992
>>17892367
>>17892750
irish have no culture
>we wuz LotR
>we wuz English folk
>we wuz norse myth
>pray to Stonehenge 3 times a day
>think the Wyrd is celtic
>think full on Anglo-saxon words are celtic
>think every English colony is irish
>think every English writer is irish
>think they are spiritually the same as native americans and aborigines.
>claim they are spiritual pagans despite being christians first
>claim they are forest loving pixies despite sawing them all down
>claim they are more creative but no one can name anything they have created
>thats ok just claim English stuff
>they think they are japanese too
>mysteriously had a fishing industry before and after the famine.

>>17892758
well yeah, israel is halfway across the world and ireland is next door
no shit

>>17891992
Perhaps, but it does amuse me that the Irish use the notion of '32 counties' at all given that it was an English imposition on the Emerald Isle

>>17892911
You are a raving lunatic. Seek help anon.

>>17893338
I'm not the one wewuzzing
Your people are

>>17892758
>kek

Fuck off kike.

>>17893457
That's just some random person on the Internet and their thoughts. No indication they're even from Ireland. You're truly mind broken and the Irish have drove you to insanity. It's hilarious.

Jesus, anon. Still at it, are we?

That's nearly 3 years you've been doing this; crying and screaming about Ireland on an anonymous history board. The very mascot of Ireland derangment syndrome.

I am certain that some retard from Kerry must have fucked your girlfriend or something because only a jaded faggot or an actual shizo would spend multiple years babbling and screaming about the Irish with the same copy-pasted slop. Keep browsing Facebook for random retards to seethe about, you hopeless weirdo

To save everyone the bother of dealing with this faggot for his 500th thread, I will post the same thing I always will;
>he watched a cartoon for kids (fictional story about "wolf walkers")
>it triggered him so badly that he has spent several years crying about Ireland
>he makes up things the Irish apparantly do and gets mad about it
Here's a link to probably one of the most embarassing threads he's had;
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16140554/#q16140554
This is where all the
>the irish claim they are...le pagans! (no, the Irish don't)

As for his copypasta greentext, most of it doesn't warrant a response. The only ones that even touch on something close to Irish history are;
>think every English writer is irish
The Anglo-Irish and the mixed identity amongst them is something that literal children can understand; some saw themselves as Irish, living in Ireland, and embraced that-others saw themselves as distinctively British, living in Ireland. Not complicated.
>mysteriously had a fishing industry before and after the famine.
Ireland had one during the famine, too. It didn't vanish for a few years. It had simply been under-developed so as to not caus contest with British fisheries, and also wasn't really set up to be able to sustain most of rural Ireland at a single harvest's notice.

Don't worry though, OP. We all know you will make more threads after this one. Maybe someday you will finally stop seething about this island

>>17891992
Northern Ireland will always be British

>>17893892
Why are irish people so obessed with stealing british culture?
These threads take me a minute to make meanwhile irish people spend hundreds of hours writing books pretending all english words are irish

>>17893892
>some saw themselves as Irish, living in Ireland, and embraced that-others saw themselves as distinctively British, living in Ireland
It was not either or for them, that's an Irish nationalist dichotomy that unionists historically did not subscribe to. They saw themselves as both Irish and British in the same vein as people in the rest of the UK saw themselves as both English/Welsh/Scottish and British.
Even Paisley considered himself an Irishman.

>>17891581 (OP)
British means Welsh or Cornish. You are a German invader.

>>17894586
all Brits even the English have indigenous dna, so what you are advocating is an anti-indigenous stance.

>>17892911
Irish monks did a great work before Vikings annihilated British islands.

>>17895745
Gloids paternal haplogroups are all Germanics. The subclade of R1b in England is not native of Britannia.

Plus the very Anglosaxon chroniclers recorded that Germans after Vortigern was kidnapped, the Germans in their typical modus operandi went to the cities and countryside murdering and raping. The survivors were called "Welsh", ie, "foreigners", in their very own ancestral lands, and relegated to live in the most rugged and hostile regions of their lslands.

>>17894476
>Irish nationalist dichotomy
I don't really think so, I certainly didn't mean to imply that via my post. When it comes to the
>"Irish and Irish Nationalist - but not necessarily spearatist"
the people who come to mind are not the likes of Paisley who stated that he considered himself an Irishman, but more the likes of O'Connell or Grattan or Griffiths.. The idea of an Irish *nation* without the separatist part is what Sinn Féin was founded, after all.

I take Ulster Unionists claiming that "they're Irish" with a pinch of salt as they rarely if ever take an interest in any aspect of "Irishness" historic or otherwise that isn't their own small cultural/religious/political circle.

I don't think the fact that they weren't separtist removes from them their right to be called Irish (and would correct any retarded Ogra Sinn Féin faggot who says otherwise) but I think it is absolutely reductive to shrug and say "meh, they're just British-not Irish!" As for
>they saw themselves as British the same way that the rest of the UK did
I would contest the idea that everyone felt this way. Yes, if pressed they've have said "British" because it's the British laws they obey, the British currency they use, and British citizenship through which they exist. But when you read books from as late as the 19th Century, there's a clear sense of regional identity being first, and national identity/legal status as secondary.

"70 Years of Irish Life" by William Richard Le Fanu is a tremendous example of this. But as you say; the idea that you can only be one or the other is the sort of stuff teenagers say. Anyone with a very basic grasp knows that trying label people born+raised in Ireland as singularly Irish/British is a fool's game.

>>17896515
>O'Connell
The paddy who made all his countrymen abandon gaelic
100 years later the irish blame the english for the death of gaelic rather than the irish themselves
constantly blaming the english for their misfortunes

Friendly reminder there isn't one single verifiable incidence of "souperism"-protestants only giving food aid if the receiver converted to protesantism- happening at all.
Not one
Irish nationalists spread the rumour of souperism around and caused tens of if not hundreds of thousands of deaths because of it

>>17896577
>friendly reminder
I don't think it's friendly at all.
>souperism never happened!!!
Now there's one I haven't seen yet.

In the late 1840s, after the worst of the famine had passed, publications circled Ireland and Britain which celebrated the terrific success of what we know now as "souperism." The Christian Observer was ablaze with joy in 1847 at what a marvellous opportunity the famine in Ireland was (or had been) for converting people to Protestants. In 1850, when John Gregg visited various isolated missionary communities, he was shocked to hear criticism from Archibishop Whatley who nodded to the bizarre nature of souperism. He said;
>"[there isn't a] more unsuitable occasion for one to change his religion and adopt ours, than when we are proposing to relieve his physical distress."

The likes of Hugh McNeile spoke constantly about how vital it was for he and other zealous Protestant groups to spread their faith in times of crisis; many of them had a strange moral crisis over it, beleiving that the government's inability to tackle the root issues was a sin in itself-but that it remained their duty to convert the Irish.

"Taking the soup", the actual phrase you have clumsily attempted to refer to, refers more to those who agreed (throug

hout post famine history) to work for British interests against Irish interests in return for money. Hence; "he took the soup." The scale of "souperism" during the famine was indeed exaggerated-but by Protestants in England and Scotland who wanted to push for further conversions in Ireland-not by the Irish.

>>17896515
>>they rarely if ever take an interest in any aspect of "Irishness" historic or otherwise that isn't their own small cultural/religious/political circle.
That has basically always been true for the vast majority of Anglo-Irish and Scotch-Irish.
>there's a clear sense of regional identity being first
Putting regional identity first was not particularly unique to Ireland, infact before the 19th century it was always the norm.
>Anyone with a very basic grasp knows that trying label people born+raised in Ireland as singularly Irish/British is a fool's game.
But that is what the post I replied to was implying.

>>17896563
>England suppresses both the Irish language and Irish culture for a very long time
>Colonises and conquers Ireland
>Confiscates land and removes the rights of most of the population
>Reduces most of said population to a state of poverty so insane that travellers from as far as the Ottoman Empire are shocked by it
>Forces through the Act of Union, killing off the (Protestant lead) patriot movement that wanted reforms
>Everything is fucking dire
>O'Connell tells them that learning English might help their lot in life
>They start learning English
>Famine caused directly by British colonial policy decimates the parts of Ireland where mongolot Irish speakers are most common and concentrated


>"heh, see? it was all because of o'connell"
make an effort, lad.

>>17896658
>That has basically always been true for the vast majority of Anglo-Irish and Scotch-Irish.
Dunno if I agree. I wouldn't even say it's been true for the Ulster Protestants throughout history; plenty of times throughout the centuries where people of varying ideas or even religions in Ireland have both considered themselves to be Irish, part of the Irish nation, or working toward the realisation of it.

Kind of splitting hairs though.
>Putting regional identity first was not particularly unique to Ireland
Yeah, for sure. But I more meant that the region was *Ireland* and the people were *Irish.* Grattan probably the best example I can think of; non-separatist and not necessarily gaelic Irish nationalism. Just the identify of being Irish, in Ireland, and wanting to better specifically Ireland.
>but that's what the post implied

I made that post, I guess I just didn't word it well. I didn't mean to imply that you could only be one or the other, just that both existed-there's a gulf between them which held many people too.

>>17896658
Realising I worded the first point of >>17896671 wrong.

When I say I doubt it for Ulster Unionists when I say "Irish", it's because Ulster Unionists do not care about anything Irish. They do not even care about all of Northern Ireland. They take no real interest in its history, culture, or any of it save from what is
>Protestant
>British Unionist
The "I'm Irish" stuff rings a bit hollow when it comes to election time and they start acting like villages and downs a few miles down the road are as foreign as Istanbul or Beijing.

>>17896663
Why hasn't Ireland tried to revive the irish language?

>>17896682
They have!

But sadly the truth is that when more or less everyone in a country already speaks a language and remain tangled with the UK (Ireland was a dominion until the 1940s) at a time when English became the lingua franca-most people aren't arsed learning a langauge to speak to people they can already speak to.

People on the internet love to talk about this cultures and cool cultural markers because yes-they're cool. But if, for example, you're an Irish family in the 1950s-you care more about trying to get by and furthering yourself than you do about spending weeks or even years becoming fluent in a language spoken only by English speakers.

Hence why the revival movement shifted away from the ideas of a full revival of fluency and toward the everyday visibility and preservation of the language to build a more solid platform to work from. Most Irish people have a little bit of Irish, younger people tend to have more. Like any language, it leaves you pretty quick if you don't use it.

>>17896697
Not being able to revive it is understandable as a revival is almost impossible to pull off, but not being able to preserve it is inexcusable.

>>17896722
I think it was past the point of "preservation" long before there was such a thing as an Irish government to try prevent it.

If I recall correctly, by 1911 there was less than 20,000 Irish speakers. When Ireland became independent that number had probably shank even more. Ireland enters the 1920s as a Dominion of the British Empire with the following to worry about
>setting up an economy
>setting up a government
>a civil war and its aftermath
The 1920s were spent dealing with the above. Then the 1930s
>new government (renewed fear of civil war)
>trade war with britain
>abdication crisis = further "republicanisation" of the irish free state
then the 1940s of course were a less than ideal for focusing on cultural pursuits.

You then arrive at the "Republic of Ireland" in the 1950s; only a few thousand speak it fluently across the entire island. Thus the policy remained
>teach it in schools, mandatory
>show it on street signs
>use it in government titles and in the various institutions like the guardia, an post, etc
>gradual revival through slowly working the language into everyday use more and more
Keep in mind that all Irish speakers in Northern Ireland spent the entire 20th Century and some of the the past 25 years living in a place that actively suppressed the language wherever it showed up-further hurting national revival efforts.

>>17896740
There was 543,511 Irish speakers in 1926, four years after Ireland got independence.

>>17891581 (OP)
Why are you retarded

>>17896744
Yeah, I misspoke; I meant "mongolot Irish speakers, aka people who spoke it more than Irish.

That said;
>550k
>almost all of whom already speak english
See the reasons in >>17896740. Speaking Irish does not make someone a cultural enthusiast or even a nationalist. I would say most of those speakers were taught it but not in a
>we must preserve the ancient language of our people!
way.

So people were choosing between somewhat spoken Irish, or English fluency-and considering most business of the day across the whole island remained to be mostly done by mongolot English speakers, it isn't difficult to see how it declined. As per the census, usually around 30-40% of the nation have "some ability in Irish", but people mistake this for "being able to speak it." I usually call this level of Irish "holiday Irish", ie enough to get by if you were holidaying somewhere that everyone spoke Irish. You couldn't chat to them about much, but you could ask directions, be pleasant, go to the shop/out for dinner, etc.

Most people just don't wanna learn a language that offers them no serious economic benefit-especially if it (in many people's eyes) no longer represents any sort of serious political gain for them.

>>17896656
Give one actual example of Protestants refusing food to catholics unless they converted to protestantism
You can't
Protestants attempted to convert people while also giving them food. Just like the salvation army used to do. Just like most food giving groups did and still do
>>17896663
Protestant anglos helped save the irish language by converting the bible to irish but o conell encouraged irish people to abandon irish
In fact most irish people despised the language and still did before the 1960s, it was seen as backwards

>>17896775
>Most people just don't wanna learn a language that offers them no serious economic benefit-especially if it (in many people's eyes) no longer represents any sort of serious political gain for them.
Why do nearly 500,000 people in Wales speak Welsh outside the education system if there is no economic benefit?

Series about a native irish speaker trying to get around ireland with only irish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyll-bBZzyk

>>17896792
>Give one actual example of Protestants refusing food to catholics unless they converted to protestantism
I just gave you a direct quote from Richard Whatley, an Anglican Archbishop, complaining about how dire it is that they're using the famine to convert people. Do you even read the posts you reply to?

The concept of "souperism" was acknowledged as soon as it happened. Margaret Aylward's entire career was born from opposition to it. There isn't a historian on earth that contests the fact that people were indeed offered famine relief on the basis that they attend Protestant services, and there are hundreds of funny anecdotes about Catholics who "took the soup" and then immediately resumed going to Catholic mass-much to the anger of the Protestants offering said soup.
>Protestant anglos helped save the irish language
Protestant Irish people were absolutely involved in the revival, particularly in the 20th Century.
>converting the bible to Irish
They did that in the 17th Century when it didn't work they resumed with colonisation. The next one wasn't until 1817, and wasonly printed in London.
>Irish language seen as backwards
It was seen as useless for those seeking economic mobility, which it was.

YOU very clearly just see history through a lens of whether it can support your own personal opinions.

>>17896797
Welsh has a very, very different history than the Irish language does. So does Wales. I haven't really seen a comparison to Ireland's situation that has made sense.

For me, the main factor in the failure to revive the language was the fact that most of the steam of the "cultural revival" aspect of the revolution died off basically immediately in 1922. Everything else had to scratch the govt for funding, or got sidelined.

You had the odd eejit like De Valera insisting that everyone should retvrn to a muh ancient gaelic ireland...but then hiring people that barely speak the language into "Irish language" government roles who all speak English to one another.

Don't get me wrong; I have little but bad things to say about Ireland's handling of the revival. But some people seem to think it's some horrendous, easily avoidable failure. In my view it's a miracle anyone speaks it at all anymore.

>>17896740
>>17896775
It isn't difficult to see how it could have been maintained. All you had to do was make it the sole language of education and mandate its use in public life in the places where these 543k were concentrated.
In a country with minority languages and a clear majority language one-sided bilingualism is usually inevitable, but a minority language can still easily survive as the language of local communities if you allow it to and give it the needed support.

>>17896832
>all you had to do
I wasn't there, anon.
>all you had to do was tell the vast majority of the population that schools are now using a language they can't speak, bro
>just completely turn all of society on its head in the first moments of your pseudo-independence, bro
huh?

You are acting like those 540k odd people were concentrated in one area. Most Irish speakers live in the south/west of Ireland, aka where there's the LEAST industry/economic centres. What you are saying as
>all you have to do
is an insane undertaking for any nation, let alone a relatively poor one which has just crawled through a revolution+civil war and which is still politically+economically tied to England, kek.

Again, don't get me wrong-more could certainly have been done. But it's easy for you or me to insist that the mostly conservative and often pro-British government of Ireland in the 1920s should have adopted some sort of Gaelic Supremacist ideology.

Some of the guys in the Irish govt in the 1920s didn't even support independence, let alone cultural revival.

>>17896832
Irish people always say that there was nothing that could have been done when they got independence and that it was too late but I think that it is a cope. I think the Irish government could have revived the language and restored it if they really, really wanted to.

>>17896848
>if they really, really wanted to
They never really did.

But again, I don't really see it happening. Don't think people are comprehending how pervasive English was to all of Irish society; people act as if the only issue is "the government failed" but they also forget that most people don't fucking care about a language if it doesn't offer them anything. The whole
>we must revive our ancient culture
might have worked if it started much earlier on, but by the time Ireland was independent most people just wanted stability+life to get better. It is not easy to convince people to learn a language that doesn't benefit them materially or socially.

It is also not easy to teach a child a language, then have him grow up in a nation of mostly mongolot speakers (where all the most popular media, politics, sport and so on is all conducted in English) and expect him to have the discipline to maintain fluency forever.

>>17896813
>I just gave you a direct quote from Richard Whatley, an Anglican Archbishop, complaining about how dire it is that they're using the famine to convert people. Do you even read the posts you reply to?
That isn't an example of refusing to give aid if the receiver did not convert to protestantism
There are religions that give aid to distaster areas nowadays as an excuse to prostelyse, that does not mean they refuse aid to anybody who doesnt convert
And i don't really trust anecdotes seeing as they "le ottoman sultan wanted to give aid but his ship was refused" anecdote has been proven completely wrong
>le colonisation
everything the british did was due to what the irish did themselves
King Billy wanted complete religious tolerance and treated the irish with clemency despite all of that

>the irish built america-ACK!
"In 1716, a law in South Carolina forbade the immigration of those “commonly called native Irish, or persons of scandalous character or Roman Catholics.”"
Based

All the irish people i've spoken to, from old farmer types to young people view the irish language as a waste of time and something that was forced upon them at school

>>17896892
>that doesn't count, he didn't literally refuse to give out food if they didn't convert
I don't think you understand the thing you're insisting didn't happen.

People showed up for food. They were asked to attend Protestant servicesas part of recieving said food (or, often, in return for clothes-it wasn't all literally "soup"). Many said no, because it would violate their religious beliefs. Others didn't. Back in Britain, the Irish Famine and Scottish Highlands Relief funds were revered by ultra-prods who openly and constantly spoke about how great it was that they could use a famine to convert people in this manner.

Some disagreed-Richard Whatley being one of them. He was not talking about people wanting to prostelyse, but about relieving people from famine so long as they start attending Protestant services. You are the first person I've ever seen to suggest that it never happened; I told you myself that the scale to which the "convert, THEN get relief" happened was exaggerated in the years following the famine, but often not even by Irish people.

"Taking the soup" isn't a literal reference to soup, lad.
>king billy wanted religious liberty
Cool, too bad that the literal second he left the island all of that stopped, the Treaty of Limerick was ditched, and a century of brutal Catholic repression kicked into third gear. Do you hear yourself?

>>17896905
Give some evidence of any of that happening
>Cool, too bad that the literal second he left the island all of that stopped, the Treaty of Limerick was ditched, and a century of brutal Catholic repression kicked into third gear. Do you hear yourself?
Protestants were subject to torture and death in catholic areas of europe, and catholics were subject to the same in protestant areas of europe. Only in the netherlands and britain did religious tolerance exist to any conceiveable scale.
The British "oppression" of catholics was paltry in comparison when compared to what the huguenots endured in france or what the catholics endured in sweden. And dissenters were subject to the same laws too but you don't see the descendents of dissenters crying about it.

>>17896846
>>all you had to do was tell the vast majority of the population that schools are now using a language they can't speak, bro
>>just completely turn all of society on its head in the first moments of your pseudo-independence, bro
Only in the Gaeltachts.
>Most Irish speakers live in the south/west of Ireland, aka where there's the LEAST industry/economic centres.
You say it like it's a bad thing, that's exactly the type of area where minority language can thrive which is of course why they were concentrated there.
>is an insane undertaking for any nation, let alone a relatively poor one which has just crawled through a revolution+civil war and which is still politically+economically tied to England
Making schools in areas where large parts of the population speak Gaelic teach in Gaelic is not insane, even for a poor country recovering from civil war.
>>17896848
Revival wasn't viable, only preservation was.

>>17896948
>Give some evidence of any of that happening
The Irish Relief Association, operating mostly out of Belfast. Among its leading members were the Duke of Manchester, a prominent landowner in Ireland. He was among those referring to the Famine as
>"The present favourable crisis"
as it oepened a new avenue to
>"convert the darkened mind of the Roman Catholic peasantry."

A term emerged among English-speakers called "speckled cats" or "jumpers", referring to those who had "taken the soup" (aka, availed of famine relief in return for attending Protestant services) only to immediately convert back once the famine ended. One such was Mary Tobin, who did exactly that years after the famine. In her recantation, she states;
>"Filthy lucre and the cunning of Ned Spring (Anglican Clergyman) enticed me."

As I will now say for a third time; the scale to which this happened is grossly exaggerated. Part of the reason for this is that Anglican and other Protestant church leaders were telling anyone who'd listen how great it was that the Famine was helping them convert people.
>uhhh well Protestants also suffered elsewhere
>you don't see dissenters crying about it
Protestant dissenters in Ireland were never treated quite as poorly as Catholics. However the idea that they "never cried about it" is so laughable that it reaffirms to me that you must be shitposting for the sake of it. Ulster Presbyterians very, very famously have held a burning loathing of the Anglican Church since the 1600s.

>>17896976
>Only in the Gaeltachts.
They did do that in the Gaeltachts. That's what a Gaeltacht is. But Gaeltachts are made in places where there are already many Irish speaker.

Those places are usually not exactly bustling hubs of economy/politics, and it's not exactly easy to convince people to move there. Gaeltachts are not set up in advance-an area becomes a Gaeltacht if it has X amount of Irish speakers, or a partial Gaeltacht if it falls a little short of it. Most of these areas (as in, the VAST majority) were in the far west of Ireland, with only a few in the midlands and a handful on the east coast. These areas were extremely deprived by the Government-and Donegal was so insanely fucked by partition that it suffered massively too.
>You say it like it's a bad thing
It is a bad thing when the only thing keeping it a Gaeltacht is Irish speakers living there, and then the Irish speakers leave because it's a shithole.
>Making schools in areas where large parts of the population speak Gaelic teach in Gaelic is not insane
No, but doing so in not very populated areas in a country with a net population loss every year which still has all the other glaring existential issues is probably closer to insane than feasible for the highly conservative pro-British government of the 1920s.

>>17896986
>However the idea that they "never cried about it" is so laughable that it reaffirms to me that you must be shitposting for the sake of it. Ulster Presbyterians very, very famously have held a burning loathing of the Anglican Church since the 1600s.
Which is why they fought alongside anglicans in the Williamite war?
Are you retarded?
And you haven't responded to the obvious fact that catholics in britain were treated better than they were anywhere outside britain besides the netherlands

>>17896995
>Which is why they fought alongside anglicans in the Williamite war?
Other Protestants are not as bad as Catholics. What are you talking about. Why in the name of fuck would Ulster Presbyterians side with:
>a catholic monarch
>who very much believes in the divine right
>who has also tried very hard to undermine protestantism wherever he can

genuinely what the fuck are you on about?
>haven't responded to the obvious fact that catholics in britain were treated better than they were anywhere outside britain
Firstly, I assume you still mean in regards to Protestant nations in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Obviously, Irish Catholics did well all over; there were countless famous Irish commanders or politicians who either emigrated from Ireland in the 17th Century or were Catholics descended directly from their father/grandfather who did. Austria, Russia, Spain, France, etc.
"Not as bad as somewhere else" does not mean "good." Shall we cancel the annual Poppy LARP because people who weren't British might have had it rough at different times?

But why are you focusing on Catholics in Britain, as opposed to Catholics in Ireland-where the greivances come from?

>>17897005
Ulster Presbyterians never had a "burning loathing" of anglicans
It was more of a simmering resentment
>Firstly, I assume you still mean in regards to Protestant nations in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Obviously, Irish Catholics did well all over; there were countless famous Irish commanders or politicians who either emigrated from Ireland in the 17th Century or were Catholics descended directly from their father/grandfather who did. Austria, Russia, Spain, France, etc.
No, i mean compared to catholics in protestant nations and compared to protestants in catholic nations such as the huguenots
>But why are you focusing on Catholics in Britain, as opposed to Catholics in Ireland-where the greivances come from?
i'm talking about catholics in ireland

>>17897010
>It was more of a simmering resentment
I dunno, having read some of the shit Presbyterian leaders came off with in the 1700s in response to certain reform movements you'd genuinely think they were itching for a crusade.
>No, i mean compared to catholics in protestant nations and compared to protestants in catholic nations such as the huguenots
I don't really know how to explain to you that a bad thing happening in one place does not undo a bad thing happening elsewhere. But likewise, the notion that displaced Protestants "never cried about it" is also a bit silly. There were multiple rebellions over it, all over Europe, and iirc France specifically was made to issue an apology for it in the late 20th Century kekked
>i'm talking about catholics in ireland
Then that's again simply wrong, anon. People from all over the world arrived in Ireland in the 18th and 19th Centuries and were horrified by what they believed to be a quite uniquely dire state of affairs. It isn't some scary republican plot cooked by Gerry Adams and his nonce mates or whatever-it's just history. The only real point of contention when it comes to Irish Famine history is
>"was it a genocide?"
to which (unless a new one has appeared) all Irish historians say "no."

>>17896993
Except it's not just the people who moved away who stopped speaking Gaelic, the people who stayed did it too.
>probably closer to insane than feasible for the highly conservative pro-British government of the 1920s
They were the ones who created the Gaeltachts in the first place, and even still it only took until 1932 for De Valera to take over.

>>17897021
>I dunno, having read some of the shit Presbyterian leaders came off with in the 1700s in response to certain reform movements you'd genuinely think they were itching for a crusade.
Which were the equivalent of 4chan shitpost screeds today.
Dissenters in the 1700s did not have a burning hatred of anglicans and vice versa. They were not an oppressed minority. Dissenters became successful writers, poets, etc They were just looked down upon by the ruling establishment as subversive.
>I don't really know how to explain to you that a bad thing happening in one place does not undo a bad thing happening elsewhere. But likewise, the notion that displaced Protestants "never cried about it" is also a bit silly. There were multiple rebellions over it, all over Europe, and iirc France specifically was made to issue an apology for it in the late 20th Century kekked
?????
My point was that compared to huguenots or catholics in sweden the irish were treated far, far better. Would the protestant equivalent of Charle's O Connor been allowed to exist in 1700s france?
Catholics in tudor england were subject to fines and restrictions but were allowed to exist if they were loyal to the government-jesuits and catholic monks were subject to death and torture however. In comparison catholics in sweden were given the death penalty.
>Then that's again simply wrong, anon. People from all over the world arrived in Ireland in the 18th and 19th Centuries and were horrified by what they believed to be a quite uniquely dire state of affairs.
And people said the same about slavery in the united states but we all know slaves were treated pretty well. The average slave was better fed than poor whites. The "malnourished" irish were well fed

>>17897026
>the people who stayed did it too.
Well yeah. Again, these people aren't culture warriors-they just spoke the language. They weren't even all necessarily involved in revival or preservation movements.

If their area is deprived, and young people leave, and everyone around them continues using English-that's what happens. Most of the Gaeltacht boundaries are basically the same as they were in 1926-which is why they have shrank so much.
>They were the ones who created the Gaeltachts in the first place
Right, but I dunno if you've looked into what "making a Gaeltacht" means.

What essentially happened was;
>go to an area
>do most people there speak fluent irish?
>congratulations, you are now a gaeltacht. have some funding for language promotion+preservation
>but not much, because there's more important things
>also the role of "guy in charge of running the gaeltacht" is going to change about 5 times in the next 50 years, and each time it will be via the addition of extra responsibilites
>also we're appointing people with only partially fluent Irish to do it
>and they will also have roles that require them to speak english
>in offices where everyone speaks english
Like I said, they fumbled it-nobody can deny that. But it certainly wasn't a simple task.

As of now, the person in charge of the Gaeltacht stuff (aka, the "Minister for the Gaeltacht") is the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality.

>>17897031
>Dissenters in the 1700s did not have a burning hatred of anglicans and vice versa
I do feel that we're going to spin into a circular argument of how much they hated them and how much they mistrusted them. The very real animosity they felt toward Anglicans (and, more broadly, to the percieved "elite" of England that neglected/seemed to want to abandon them) is very noticeable in the pre-patriot years of the 18th Century.
>huguenots or catholics in sweden the irish were treated far, far better
and my point is that I don't think it's a contest, anon. In the 17th Century, Irish Catholic priests were indeed captured and executed regularly. For a not insignificant portion of the 1700s, Irish Catholics had to practice their faith in secret to avoid the guys who's job it was to hunt them down.

Any Catholic Priest who refused to take the Oath of Abjuration, for example, was to be arrested and executed as per the 1709 Penal Act.
>And people said the same about slavery in the united states but we all know slaves were treated pretty well.
>slaves were treated pretty well
>malnourished irish were well fed
No, they weren't anon. If the malnourished Irish were well fed, then around 1,000,000 wouldn't have starved to death in the famine.

I know there's an element of shitposting to your posts (I don't mind, I like debating stuff) but when you come off with stuff like that it sounds like you're one of the shizo /int/fags that cries about Ireland 24/7. It'd be like me saying
>those protestants in portadown weren't massacred in 1641, they were all secretly armed and waiting to kill the innocent irish
Unless you have some sort of actual evidence to the stuff you're saying, why bother?

You've already moved beyond your initial rants about souperism. Clearly either you're finding shit to be mad about or being fed it-if some retard on twitter or something is giving you these alt-history takes I would urge you to find someone better.

Why is irish even a mandatory subject in irish schools?

>>17897034
If everyone in neighbouring communities speak English you have a reason to learn English, but if everyone in your own community still speaks Gaelic you still have a reason to speak Gaelic within your own community. There are a tonne of minority languages like West Frisian, Welsh, Galician, Catalan, Basque, Swedish in Finland, German in Italy, Sardinian, Hungarian in most of the neighbouring countries, etc., that are doing alot better than Irish largely because they have been able to entrench themselves in more rural communities, and unlike Irish many of them were repressed deep into the 20th century.

>>17897060
I think it's just symbolic at this point because surely every Irish politician must have realized by now that making every Irish kid learn rudimentary Irish is not going to turn things around.

>>17897042
>and my point is that I don't think it's a contest, anon. In the 17th Century, Irish Catholic priests were indeed captured and executed regularly. For a not insignificant portion of the 1700s, Irish Catholics had to practice their faith in secret to avoid the guys who's job it was to hunt them down.
>Any Catholic Priest who refused to take the Oath of Abjuration, for example, was to be arrested and executed as per the 1709 Penal Act.
Normal people who were catholic were never once executed for their views. Not in any part of britain. Alexander pope, a catholic, was britain's most famous poet.
If britain was rabidly anti catholic how did Charle's o Conor survive instead of being executed? Why were the gordon rioters stopped by the government?
>No, they weren't anon. If the malnourished Irish were well fed, then around 1,000,000 wouldn't have starved to death in the famine.
Slaves in the american south were treated well. They were on average an inch higher than poor whites.
Irish people, aside from the famine, ate extremely well. There's an old image that used to go around on /his/ showing the diet of the average irish person and they were high in calories and in protein.

>>17896577
yes there is but irish collectively scrub the info from textbooks and the net.
I found evidence of it and it was bizarrely hard to find.
Irish commit dirty crimes against other irish and then collectively cover it up.
You see this all over the net in every irish history discussion is framed in a pro-irish pro-catholic distortion of history.

>>17896577
also they literally had concentration camps for people that were accused of taking the soup

>>17894215
>Northern Ireland will always be British

>>17895763
>Ireland
>British islands

>>17898958
Everyone has called them the British isles since before the birth of Christ and everyone always will no matter how much fenians seethe about it.

>>17899132
>the British isles

>>17891581 (OP)

Because Britain is one of the oldest to be Christianized and most faithful Christian nations, and for most of their existence they were smelly pagans which clearly fuels their need to steal from people more developed and godly than them.

>>17899244
i think this thread is retarded spam but this screeching about the british isles as a general descriptive term reeks of bruised ego and butthurt

>>17899247
The irish literally converted the anglo saxons from paganism to christianity though
why do people love pretending the irish were le hippy dippy pagans when historically they were the opposite?

>>17899604
>The irish literally converted the anglo saxons from paganism to christianity though
this is true but not the full picture. The reason Augustine and his mission get the credit isn't because of any English shame at the Irish being the ones who converted them but because it was the Roman rites introduced by Augustine which won out at the Synod of Whitby

>>17899538
Only british autists saw british isles
nobody worldwide uses the term

>>17896792
>Protestant anglos helped save the irish language by converting the bible to irish but o conell encouraged irish people to abandon irish

The Bible was converted into Irish by Irish clergymen who were Protestant during the reign of Elizabeth 1st

>After the Tudor reconquest of Ireland, the established Church of Ireland attempted to consolidate the Reformation in Ireland, with little success among the Gaelic Irish. The first translation of the New Testament (Tiomna Nuadh) was begun by Nicholas Walsh, Bishop of Ossory, who worked on it until his untimely death in 1585. The work was continued by John Kearney (Treasurer of St. Patrick's, Dublin), his assistant, and Dr. Nehemiah Donellan, Archbishop of Tuam, and it was finally completed by William O'Domhnuill (William Daniel, Archbishop of Tuam in succession to Donellan). The Irish New Testament was printed in 1602 and was reprinted in 1681.[2] The entire Bible (Old and New Testaments combined) was first published in 1690.

>>17897773
>they literally had concentration camps for people that were accused of taking the soup

You are mentally ill and making stuff up

>le irish are freedom fighters, 800 years of fighting the british, tiochfaidh ar la
>join with mexican spics in 1846 to fight against fellow whites in the mexican american war
>join the us army in 1861 to fight for lincoln in his mercenary horde against seceding southerners
why are they like this?

>>17901996
>join with mexican spics in 1846 to fight against fellow whites in the mexican american war
shitposters learned about the San Patricios? Based, I love talking about them.

So a huge part of why so many Irish defected to form the San Patricios is due to the very poor treatment they suffered in the US Army; this was in the era of all the nativist carry on, so many of these men (who had arrived in the USA in the prior few years, having fled poor conditions in Ireland) were terribly mistreated. Others, however, were likely simply prisoners of the Mexican Army who were convinced or coerced to join them-then finding a new community in the San Patricios. The San Patricios actually continued to exist after the war, and were used to suppress Royalist revolts.
>fight for lincoln against the south
They were convinced to do so by influential Irish leaders in the north, who believed Irish participation in the Union Army would be a greta way to improve the standing of the rapidly developing "Irish-American" community. Some also joined up to get military experience to hopefully later use in the Fenian Movement.

Really interesting history; the San Patricios in particular were fascinating. Spain had plenty of polticians and military leaders with Irish parentage in the 19th Century; Juan O'Donojú was one, the last Viceroy of New Spain. His parents had moved to Spain from Ireland to evade the infamous Penal Laws.

Irish influences over Latin America is a really, really cool topic.

>>17902104
>is due to the very poor treatment they suffered in the US Army; this was in the era of all the nativist carry on
Because the based WASPs saw how the irish would use ethnic nepotist curleyism against them
Just like the same scum do and have done in glasgow, liverpool and elsewhere

>>17891581 (OP)
why do they still have an esl accent? they haven't spoken celtic in 500 years so why don't they have a normal american or british accent yet?

I know this is an anti irish bait thread but can one of the irish history autists tell me why irish never survived overseas in their immigrant communities?

>>17902124
>just have a noirmal british accent
Britain alone has a fuckload of wildly different accents, ya dummy.

>>17902124
>esl accent
why do taigs love lying so much?
the irish accent descends completely from the accent spoken by english settlers from the west country
There's nothing "esl" or "celtic" about it

>>17902134
>taigs
im not irish but cant imagine actual english people talking like leprecauns lmao

>>17902131
Similar reasons it didn't really survive in Ireland.

Biggest waves of Irish migration were in the 19th Century, by which point it was already in hard decline-the Irish mostly landed in places that spoke English (aka, Canada/US/Britain) or they landed in Spanish speaking countries.

In English speaking countries, the pressures on the language were quadrupled. In other countries, they tended to arrive sporadically and not in large enough numbers to make things like Irish districts or whatever. Plus, when the Irish emigrated to other European nations or their colonies, the more talented among them quickly worked their way up through society to become politicians/military leaders and so on-which of course demands an excellent grasp of the local language.

There are patches of examples of the diaspora retaining Irish for a while, but again it wasn't really on a scale that allows for an Irish speaking community to thrive. There was an Irish language newspaper printed in New York for a bit, I think until the early 1900s. But aye, just not enough people involved or dedicated to it; most were content to embrace the massive bump in their quality of life that came with emigrating and assimilating.

>>17902140
The "leprechaun" accent you refer to is mostly in the west/south. Dublin accents (aside from the more working class ones) aren't really much to write home about. The stereotypical "Irish Accent" that people think of is mostly only found in the far south/west.

Oh Begorrah! It’s another potato famine! Hide me pot of gold!

>>17891581 (OP)
As an Arab the Irish are the only people in the euroach subcontinent I love and support

We will never forget how you stood for us in modern history, I'd unironically die for Ireland

>>17899538
>the british isles
>>17900792
>british isles

>>17900792
>Only british autists saw british isles
>nobody worldwide uses the term
https://desuarchive.org/int/search/text/%22British%20isles%22/
you sure about that?

>>17900792
Literally everyone outside of Ireland says British Isles

>>17901996
as a white person you should never ever in your life trust an irish person.

>>17902131
I mean even if we go back far enough that English and Irish were big in Ireland, if you know both English and Irish, and you move to a country that overwhelmingly speaks English, that's what you're going to end up drifting towards. Even if you came from some Irish speaking part of the country during like the famine, English was the language of administration and a large amount of the country, I doubt even people from intensely Irish speaking areas had no familiarity or sense of English whatsoever, so even if they don't really speak it when they immigrate, they may be unusually primed to adopt English.

>>17891581 (OP)
I check this board like 3 times a year and every single time I do this same person is making this same thread and replying to themselves. Ireland has a population of like 8 million. You are choosing to think about Ireland about 100,000 times more often than you would naturally be prompted to. I don't think about Ireland as often as you and I'm Irish.

>>17903335
most of the samefagging ITT comes from an /int/ autist who seethes all over the website about ireland. I do not know what caused such a burning autistic rage in him but he's been at this for several years kek

Still, gives me an excuse to chatter about Irish history in between his spergouts

>>17899604
>The irish literally converted the anglo saxons from paganism to christianity though
Not true though, is it, even in Northumbria where they did have a stronger influence on religious mores

>>17902250
I hate you kikes so much.

>>17903377
I feel like you're his nemesis and the tranny makes these threads at times just to do battle with you. It's autistic as fuck. Always put sage in options so not to bump his faggy threads too.

>>17904133
I just like talking about irish history. I only recognise "him" (if he's OP) because he copy-pastes the same shit and openly admitted to it. There aren't many Irish posters on the site so I guess my posts are easy to spot, but from what other anons say it's just some /int/ schizo.